Design Failure

.
University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
 When Does a Design Fail?

A failed design is a design process which

one does not achieve the specified
design goals.

In this class, failure could be project

cancellation due to nonperformance or
no support for next year’s project

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 Conventional Types of Design Failure

1. It doesn’t work!

2. It would work, but ……..!

3. It works, but no one wants it!

4. Ooops [we’ll see what this means]

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 It doesn’t work [broad definition]!
Cannot find a design solution that meets
performance,
cost,
time,
etc. specifications - even after compromises.

Examples:
Fusion reactor for power - too costly, inefficient
Geared turbofan
Electric Car - performance/cost not acceptable

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 It would work, but …..!

All the theory, analysis, experiment and simulation

says it should work, but it doesn’t.

Example: F-102 delta wing pursuit plane [We will

see about this shortly].
What are your teams doing to ensure success?
 Theory: _______________
 Analysis: ______________
 Experiment: ____________
 Simulation: _____________

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 It works but no one wants it!

The operation was a success but the patient died.

Examples:
Ford Edsel - great car, freak design
Sony Betamax - people wanted VHS
DEC PC’s - incompatible floppy

Not normally an issue for your teams, but

make sure you are doing what sponsor
wants / needs

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 Oops!
It works,
but some unanticipated condition or reason
causes it to fail.

Examples:
Challenger Disaster - “O” rings failed below
freezing temperature
Civic Center Roof - overloaded
Mianus River Bridge - mechanical failure

How do you minimize your risks?

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
 Design Failure Categories

Catastrophic:
- Serious damage to life, property;
- Serious financial loss; etc.
Soft:
- Design goals not met but nobody hurt,
- Missed opportunity
Repercussions:
- No UCONN support for next year
- No job offers to graduates

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 Failure Mechanisms

1. Financial 2. Performance

3. Physical 4. Process

5. People

Let’s now look at each of the above failure modes

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 Failure Mechanisms

1. Financial

- Design cost too high

- Production cost too high
- Marketing unsuccessfulloss of market advantage
- Inadequate service organization
- Liabilities

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 Failure Mechanisms

2. Performance

- Fails under certain environmental conditions.

- Fails under certain operating conditions

- Fails to achieve full performance specs

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 Failure Mechanisms

3. Physical

- Mechanical - overstress, fracture, fatigue, over-

heating, lubrication, corrosion,
tolerances

- Electrical - overheating, burnout, bad solder/

connector, tolerances, timing
deterioration

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 Failure Mechanisms

3. Physical [cont’d]

- Hardware/Software
Programming bug, timing problem,
interfacing problem, too slow, not enough
memory, glitches

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 Failure Mechanisms
4. Process
Design is OK, but implementation a problem
- Ford Taurus ignition switch
- Firestone ATX tires (see later)
- K.C. Hyatt (see later)

5. People
Design is OK, but people can be a problem
- skill level of workers (Firestone Decatur plant)
- supervision of workers (PW TF30 for F111)
- interest level of workers
University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
 Failure Mechanisms

Now let’s consider some examples of

design failures that are both infamous and
catastrophic

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 Design Failure: Firestone ATX Tires

Who was at fault, Ford or Firestone?

 ATX tires used on trucks never had failure modes
 Statistically greater failure of left rear tires

Physical
- shoulder pockets (for traction in mud and snow) cut too deep,
leaving too little rubber on edge
- shoulder pockets cut at right angles to tread increasing strain on
shoulder

Process or People
- Manufacturing standards at Decatur plant were inconsistent
- Decatur plant used too much lubricant to keep rubber compounds
from sticking together during manufacturing. Belts from this plant
did not stick to each other as well as in other plants.

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 Design Failure: YF102

YF-102

• Convair [Gen. Dyn.] delta-winged fighter

• Unable to fly supersonically, i.e. M < 1

• Problem diagnosed as limited by physical

principle not mechanical shortcoming
• Area rule (Whitcomb, NACA)
• blockage of wings causes excessive
drag rise

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 Design Failure: YF102

Solution is to reduce flow blockage

YF-102A
• Coke bottle fuselage design

YF-102

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 Design Failure: DC10 Cargo Door

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 Design Failure: DC10 Cargo Door

All commercial aircraft are pressurized while flying

Outside air is at low pressure compared to cabin
Inward opening door plug tight against door frame
Cargo door open outward so as not to lose interior
cargo storage space
DC10 door locking procedure [baggage handler]
 Pull down top-hinged door and shut it
 Swing down lever on outside or door
 Press and hold button operating electric motor
 Put ear to fuselage until hear click, then hold for 7 more
seconds till motor stops

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 Design Failure: DC10 Cargo Door

DC10 flight on June 12, 1972 from Detroit to Buffalo

DC10 baggage handler has difficulty closing door, but
forces lock which gives false signal of locking
After takeoff, cargo door blows out sucking out rear galley
and damaging hydraulic cables and cables to tail
Pilot deviates from accepted procedures and successfully
landed plane; design changes recommended
Turkish Airlines inspection paperwork stamped with quality
control approval [indicating cargo door repaired]; plane
crashed in 1974 due to cargo door failure, killing 346.

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 Design Failure: K.C. Hyatt Atrium

Background

• Plush hotel complex with atrium inter

connecting 3 buildings
• 2 / 1 pedestrian walkways for the 2-4 / 1
floors
• At evening tea dance in atrium (1981)
with people dancing on walkways; 2-4
floor walkways collapsed
• Worst structural disaster in U.S.
History
• 114 dead, 200 injured

• Owner (D. Hall) settled more than 90%

of claims out of court as a sense of
duty and civic responsibility

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 Design Failure: K.C. Hyatt Atrium

Observation: failure site noted at 4th floor box beam

hanger on walkway
 Walkway sliding (bearing) support chosen to allow beam to
expand / contract with temperature changes

Brainstorming of Failure Causes

 People dancing on walkways sets up a resonance
 Quality of material used in construction
 Construction crew skill level
 On-site contractor (as-built) modification of final design

Design changes approved by architects and structural engineers

As built 4th floor support takes twice the designed load

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 Design Failure: K.C. Hyatt Atrium

Box Beam Hanger-as Built Box Beam Hanger-as Designed

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 Design Failure: K.C. Hyatt Atrium

Actual dead load (weight of all components) of walkway was 8%

greater than designed dead load
Live load (required by K.C code was 72,000 lbs/walkway), but
with 63 people on 2 walkways, actual live load = 63 (150 lbs) =
9450 lbs << 72,000 lbs
Load per 6 supports therefore was 72,000 * 2 / 6 = 24,000

Notes do not say what design should be able to take

Principal manager and project manager fro m structural firm had

Missouri license revoked for not calculating whether support would

work.

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 Design Failure: Boston Hancock Building

Background
• 60 story floor-to ceiling reflective glass panels
• Glass panels started blowing out from the
beginning of construction (1973). At times
more than 1/3 of panels were out.
• Cause not certain due to legal agreement of
“nondisclosure in perpetuity”
• Design satisfied all governing codes
• Some information gleaned from construction
grapevine

Window design
• Double-glazed, doubled pane panels
• Lead spacer at edges to separate panels
• Design allowed for view of continuous glass
University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
 Design Failure: Boston Hancock Building

Brainstorming

• Large wind storm correlated to panel blowout

Lateral deflection of structure due to wind effect
not verified in tests
• Twisting motion (short direction) observed by
tenants (had to be damped out)
• 600 tons of lead dampers added near
roof

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 Design Failure: Boston Hancock Building

Failure Cause Analysis

• Glass panels were correctly installed

• Thermal stress cycles induced by compression
/ expansion of air between panes
• Most panes cracks found in outer panes first
• Lead solder overconstrains glass causing
premature fatigue

Replace all 10,344 panels with single pane glass

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 Guarding Against Failure

Organizational

Management Plan
Financial Plan
Marketing Plan
Engineering

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 Guarding Against Failure
Engineering
Modeling / Simulation
Design Review [CDR, Tiger Teams]
Prototyping
Testing
Maintenance Plan
Failsafe Design - Redundancy
Documentation

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 What are your teams doing to ensure success?

 Theory: _______________
 Analysis: ______________
 Experiment: ____________
 Simulation: _____________

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

 What are your teams doing to ensure success?

Finally remember to document your failures

for you and others to learn from….

But if someone has to be blamed for a

project failure, blame your advisor.

University of Connecticut MECHANICAL ENGINEERING